Crusade Against Eating Meat Turns Religious

By ABBY WEINGARTEN
New York Times Regional Newspapers

Meat and religious ceremony share a long history, a link so sacred that severing it may seem blasphemous to some.

Then there are others who assert that following an omnivorous diet is a sin all its own.

Neither group wants to waver. And neither wants to be told what to believe or, more importantly, how to eat. For almost a year now, one organization has taken an extreme stance on encouraging nonvegetarians to reconsider.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has launched an advertising campaign with a bite -- one that suggests good Christians steer clear of flesh consumption, and that Jesus would have agreed with such advice.

Spearheaded by Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan campaigns, the movement pushes a hard-to-swallow message. A billboard depicts a piglet beside the sentence, "He died for your sins," and a photograph of chickens carries the caption "Holocaust on your plate." Bloody bobble heads of Kentucky Fried Chicken's iconic Colonel Sanders have been sent to the media. McDonald's said recently it would consider different methods of slaughtering chickens.

"People will always continue to argue that eating meat is OK. But it's no more defensible than slavery is defensible," Friedrich said. "I have yet to hear a cogent argument against that."

David Martosko, director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, based in Washington, D.C., would like to make one. CCF's mission is to protect consumers by informing them about groups infringing upon their food and beverage choices. PETA, in Martosko's estimation, is one of the most notorious infringers.

"These people are twisting Scripture to their own ends. This is in-your-face, bare-knuckle bar fighting," Martosko said.

"Friedrich's campaign is based on the flawed premise that Jesus was a vegetarian. But Jesus celebrated Passover his entire life," Martosko said, referring to an observance in which lamb in significant. "This campaign is wrong, and it's sacrilegious in my mind."

CITING GENESIS

PETA produced a free pamphlet in early 2004 arguing otherwise, citing religious justifications for the vegetarian lifestyle.

This information was endorsed by a Christian Vegetarian Association board member, the Rev. John Dear, author of "Christianity and Vegetarianism: Pursuing the Nonviolence of Jesus."

The text stated that, in the United States, more than 9 billion land animals and 15 billion marine life-forms are killed each year by throat-slitting, suffocation, bodily decompression and crushing. Friedrich added that pigs and cows are castrated without pain relief, and that chickens have their beaks sliced off without anesthetics.

"My hunch is that most Christians, most Americans actually, would not want to slit animals' throats open," Friedrich said. "Morally speaking, there's no difference between eating a chicken and eating a cat. It is entirely arbitrary. And Biblically speaking, the earth is on loan to us, and we're supposed to be stewards."

To back up Friedrich's biblical claim, the brochure includes this passage from Genesis 1:29: "God said, `See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.' "

While some may contend that biblical statements are open to interpretation, Friedrich said he feels that they are clearly on his side. He said that the results of the last presidential election are proof that moral values, such as his, are becoming paramount in American society. Therefore, he said, those values are "guiding the faithful toward a more humane way of eating."

PETA'S CONTROVERSIES

But Martosko said he believes that Friedrich is the opposite of progressive, and that his campaign strategies are counterproductive and alienating. PETA recently attacked the methods of a kosher meat producer in Iowa, and enraged Jewish groups in early 2004 by comparing Nazi Holocaust victims to farm animals, Martosko said.

He added that Friedrich has previously defended arson of slaughterhouses and medical research labs that conduct animal testing.

"What I object to is hijacking religion for a political end. We've all got religious traditions that we hold dear to, whether it's the Christmas turkey or ham, or lamb on Passover," Martosko said. "Bruce wants this vegan utopia. If he succeeds, it comes at the price of neutering a wide swath of religious traditions. I don't think they've counted on the backlash they're going to get. Most Christians I know will take Christ's word over Bruce Friedrich's seven days of the week."

PIOUS VEGETARIANS

Some figures in the religious vegetarian community are taking both Christ's and PETA's words seriously, even if they do not wholeheartedly agree with Friedrich's approach.

Richard Schwartz is president of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America and the coordinator of the Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians. The latter is an interfaith effort that believes all religions stress compassion toward animals, and both organizations have worked alongside PETA in years past.

"We don't agree 100 percent with PETA, but we agree in terms of the fact that animals are definitely mistreated. We have slightly different perspective, based on Jewish values, but it's to the same end," Schwartz said from his home in Staten Island, N.Y.

"We've been trying to give people a wake-up call about how their meat is produced. We feel that shifting to vegetarianism is a societal imperative."

Schwartz said his research shows that 10 billion animals are raised every year in the United States in abusive "factory farms" where they are denied fresh air or space to move comfortably.

Steve Kaufman, co-chairman of the Christian Vegetarian Association, wants these points to be known by the public. He said he also is aware that many people attach a stigma to members of his vegetarian movement.

"I would say that most of the people who have been very critical of us have not read what we've said or have intentionally not understood us. It's a position that's not easy to argue with because it's Bible-based," Kaufman said from his home in Cleveland. "We're frequently criticized for thinking we're better Christians than everybody else."

The difference between his and Friedrich's ideology, he said, is that Kaufman does not aver that eating meat is inherently sinful.

`GOD'S COVENANT WITH ANIMALS'

One woman who does cooperate with PETA and other animal rights groups is Regina Hyland, also known by her pen name, J.R. Hyland.

The ordained evangelical minister and Long Island, N.Y., native has lived in Sarasota since 1985, and maintains the philosophy that one's diet is a personal choice. Her convictions about her own are strong, but she does not condone forcing that opinion on others.

Hyland said she has been vegetarian for 32 years, ever since she witnessed brutal animal experiments in a college laboratory. She went on to write "The Slaughter of Terrified Beasts: A Biblical Basis for the Humane Treatment of Animals" in 1988, which was reissued in 2000 by Lantern Books under the title "God's Covenant With Animals."

Hyland said she believes that, just as Western culture used the Bible to denigrate women, to prolong slavery, and to justify war, the Scriptures have been used to terrorize animals.

"The New Testament puts it succinctly: `All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,' " Hyland said. "I feel so strongly about this, but it's not like I am trying to push anyone into something. I just really feel like it is a personal thing with me, and that's how it should be with everyone."

Abby Weingarten writes for the Herald-Tribune in Sarasota.

ENDANGERED SPECIES – FEBRUARY 2005

The devastation and illusions being created by the Endangered Species Act continue to grow and harm more citizens and threaten ever more components of this Nation. Two current examples of this will suffice for the purposes of this article.

WOLVES. Wolves continue to spread over the Upper Midwest and in the West. Midwestern dogs in yards, on walks, and engaged in hunting for their masters are killed and maimed at increasing rates. Western elk, moose, bighorn sheep and deer herds decrease and then plunge in the wake of expanding wolf populations and wolf range expansions. Hunting permits and success are likewise plunging which in turn causes revenue to State fish and wildlife agencies to plunge. State governments (with the exception of Wyoming) emulate European nations in the 1930’s when Hitler was on the move and again in the 1940’s when Stalin stayed in Eastern Europe, in other words they capitulate to power.

Dogs are being killed all over the wolf areas but the press and pet owners ignore the problem. Wolf censuses are conducted by “volunteers” who are advocates of stopping hunting, ranching, logging, closing down public lands, moving people out of rural areas, etc. and that purposely shape wolf figures to please the Federal bureaucrats and State employee sympathizers. Ranchers are selling out as public land allotments are closed down and wolf depredations erase slim profit margins. A Saskatchewan miner walking home from work was recently attacked by a non-rabid wolf but the matter received little to no attention in the US press. The US press always covers predator attacks that kill and maim people as examples of people either being in the “wrong place” (i.e. the predators “habitat”) or behaving improperly. Like overweight McDonalds customers, wolves or mountain lions are never to blame.

Meanwhile the US press and the communications directors of government agencies and radical environmental “Centers” are grinding out wolf propaganda like communist pamphleteers in 1917 Russia. Wolves are “bringing back streamside vegetation” by killing big game animals. Wolves are “restoring the balance of nature” (whatever the heck that means). Everyone is “accepting wolves” (except a couple of high school-dropouts in the back country). The Federal government is “allowing” certain ranchers in certain States (those that recognize the Federal power to do whatever they want with wildlife) to kill certain wolves when they are killing livestock and the rancher can prove it. “Experts” and bureaucrats blame the loss of wildlife on weather and mumble about how more land set asides and purchase by government are “necessary”. Predictions of Armageddon from the reelection of the President or any attempt to touch the Endangered Species Act are as common as poppies along an Italian roadside. States beginning to receive wolves are practicing laying on their backs with their paws in the air (those of you that have seen dogs fight know what I mean) to the Federal bureaucrats. State reports on the matter and State rationales about why wolves won’t be harmful are shameful but reflective of the transition of State fish and wildlife agencies from State employees to Federal underlings beholden to Federal dollars for their very jobs.

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP. Bighorn sheep exist all over the western mountains. Although they have been very responsive to management programs and they generate millions of dollars in revenue and benefits from hunting, they are becoming a tool to kill hunting and further disable the State fish and wildlife agencies from serving the residents of their State. Bighorn sheep (like other big game) are feeling the sting of wolves as the wolves spread in the Northern Rockies. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming see it now and (the honest ones) admit that it will only get worse. Remember this silence about disappearing bighorn sheep as we look at California bighorn sheep.

California bighorn sheep are simply the bighorn sheep that live in the Sierra Mountains of California. They are the exact same bighorn sheep as the other Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep around the West, only they inhabit California.

In the late 70’s and early 80’s radical animal rights organizations and hysterical urbanites spread disinformation widely about the “poor” mountain lions that were being “hunted and killed”. Since, in those bygone halcyon days, the urbanites didn’t see mountain lions, they swallowed the bait and voted to prevent any management (by California Fish and Game) or hunting of mountain lions. The lions increased in numbers and began to pop up everywhere. People were and are killed and maimed, pets are killed, and the more numerous mountain lions found the bighorn sheep giving birth every spring in Sierra meadows. Killing the female bighorn as she gave birth was and is a snap and the hungry lion gets both the large female and the tender lamb as it is experiencing birth. It doesn’t take much of this sort of predation and pretty soon, no more sheep. Thus did the California Bighorn Sheep come to the attention of Federal Endangered Species’ bureaucrats at the behest of the same radicals and extremists that got the mountain lion protected in the first place.

It was a bonanza for the radicals, extremists, and bureaucrats. The US Fish and Wildlife Service got another “charismatic mega species” to “save” (and request money and personnel for from Congress). They then expanded the Act’s coverage by fabricating something called a “distinct population segment”. No, not a species, not a subspecies, not a race, not even a “population” or a “distinct population”; their success with “Listing” a “distinct population segment” (essentially a few of any kind of animal on any side of any legal boundary) meant that the Feds could “List” ANYTHING they wanted anytime they wanted. The States understood this and so did the Feds’ radical “partners”.

Further Federal success came when the US Fish and Wildlife Service had the USDA government trappers take on the annual job of trapping and “transplanting” California mountain lions each spring to “save” the bighorn sheep. So USDA gets more people and more Federal Appropriations (that is your and my income taxes at work here) to “manage” California’s mountain lions in bighorn sheep areas. Note to the naïve: they may “transplant” them or they may not. At least one State that is prohibited from managing an overpopulated and problem species Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act is quietly “transplanting” them underground. The reason? Wolves, mountain lions, bears, alligators, and other “problem” species that are live-trapped and “transplanted” can generally get back to that “problem” area quicker than a Canada goose (that may be a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). The real point is why are ALL OF US paying Millions for this nonsense when hunters PAY the State to do the same thing? The answer is that while the Federal government absorbs all the management authority over these animals, the States lose wildlife managers and hire ideologues in tune with Federal protectionism and State residents are left with no one to protect them and their rights.

So the radicals boast about the “balance of nature” and how you “don’t need to kill” (fill in the blank). The Feds “keep an eye” on things and the Californians wonder about why hunters are even allowed in the State (and what about fishermen?).

Oh, I almost forgot. The radicals and the Federal bureaucrats have begun to “worry” that domestic sheep grazing in the Sierras will “infect” the precious California bighorn sheep. So the Federal government is using the bighorn as the reason they “have” to shut down the sheep grazing allotments all over the Sierras. If this stands (as it has) what about domestic dogs transmitting parvo or distemper to the precious wolves? Dog owners (like every other animal user group) continue to look inward and argue among themselves about shelters and rescue and some old lady found with a bunch of dogs and the need for “more” laws while such precedents are established and expanded. I was told once as a kid in Illinois that when hogs were butchered “they use everything but the squeal”. Well those hogs’ utility had nothing on these California bighorns. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next 5 years they are the reason Californians shut down fast food joints, outlaw SUV’s, and sign the Kyoto Treaty on their own.

STATUS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. In February of 2005 the status of the Endangered Species Act is problematic at best. The Act has become a tool to implement the nightmares of radical organizations and the dreams of federal bureaucrats. The previous President grew the Act dramatically and hired activists throughout government to expand the Federal authority for Federal benefit. State government authority and private property owners have been greatly diminished. Citizens in practically every walk of life (except bureaucrats, environmental extremists, and animal rights radicals) are being hurt. The disruption of the natural environment of the United States is extreme and damaging to plants and animals and their habitats.

The current President is more benign. His appointees are a mix of persons in high places that talk a good game of helping citizens but they are surrounded by a sea of activist Federal managers and low-level appointees that are true “partners” with radical groups and their agendas. While they work surreptitiously on creating a Federal Invasive Species mandate, publicly their only suggestion for improving Endangered Species Programs is more money and more power for themselves.

The Congress, for the first time since passage of the Act, has a large number of members who are sensitive to the growing Endangered Species complaints from constituents. The cries for “reform” have attracted attention but the radical groups, radical appointees, bureaucrats and press are out in force. What should be a rosy picture for amending the Endangered Species Act or maybe even revoking the UN Convention that underpins the Act is slowly turning a shiny brown.

First, and perhaps rightly, the perception here at the center of the Universe is that the current Secretary of the Interior and a few other appointees have been so “nice” lately. They won’t “List” the Preble’s jumping mouse, they are letting certain ranchers shoot a wolf, and they are giving lots of “support” to States that play ball. The perception here in Washington is that there is no longer an army of outraged citizens willing to back the politicians against the radicals and all their allies. What everyone misses here is that EVERYTHING and I do mean EVERYTHING the current appointees give you; the next appointees will have the same power to take away. It is the power taken from State governments and private citizens and given to Federal bureaucrats that MUST be returned or things will only continue to get worse to the point of eventual collapse.

Second, an “Energy Bill” (meaning the debate over the needed oil drilling on the Artic Slope in Alaska) will be taking all of the attention of the two key Chairmen that must oversee any Endangered Species Act reform. (Remember the Endangered Species Act has gone unauthorized for over 15 years [a violation of law] while it continues to get more funding and expand beyond the wildest dreams of its’ authors. This bizarre circumstance is due to the power of the radicals, the self-interest of bureaucrats, and the lies and deceptions that flood the media and schools.) Those two Chairmen, Congressman Pombo of California and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, are perhaps the two finest politicians in Washington. Based on what I have observed over the years, they are concerned (in a practical and common sense way) about the natural environment of the US, they understand the role of the bureaucracy, and they are aware of the current and future threat posed by the Act as it now stands. They and the members of their Committees (the House Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) need all the encouragement and help they can get to take on this difficult task and see it through.

Third, this Congress is no longer openly opposed to reforms. There may not ever again be such a Congress. The longer the Act grows and establishes precedents and get powerful bureaucrats committed to it for themselves, the harder it gets to change anything. That is why some in Washington are stressing “strengthening” the Act rather than reforming or amending the Act as acceptable jargon. Whether it is wise to use such verbal judo I leave to others to decide. What I am concerned about is the current campaigns by US bureaucrats to work with UN bureaucrats to sponsor international meetings to draft and sign 2 new UN “Conventions” or Treaties. Clever US bureaucrat ideologues are conniving with UN counterparts to create international meetings for two such new Conventions. Invasive Species (or Native Ecosystem) and Small Arms UN Conventions signed off on by the US would superceded the 2nd Amendment and give the US Federal government power over the environment that would dwarf what the Endangered Species Act is doing. If we embark on an Endangered Species Act “strengthening” effort instead of publicly recognizing the Act (that is based on a UN Convention, CITES) as a source of immeasurable problems and harm, what argument is there against giving the Federal government similar power over guns and all aspects of “the environment” based on similar “Conventions”? If there are problems we can merely “strengthen” it down the road.

I can’t predict the future any more than you but I can recognize a problem today. It seems that if we let the current opportunity slip away, there may not be another. Think about what you can do to let the politicians you know understand that you expect change. Don’t worry about the bureaucrats or the radicals, they are known entities and must be dealt with accordingly. Changing the law and placing the bureaucracy under appointees that mean business will take care of that. Of course we must fight the day-to-day battles but we must not lose sight of the big picture. At minimum the Act must be changed to return State authority over Endangered and Threatened Species to State governments. Private property must not be taken without compensation and restoration of species should be based on their occurrence in recent years, not the wild imaginings of what met Columbus or Lewis and Clark. It is up to each of us.

Jim Beers
29 January 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net

She talks to the animals
By ELIZABETH ABBOTT Saturday, January 29, 2005 - Page D3

A featherweight bout

Crusade Against Eating Meat Turns Religious